How many ham systems use compression?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Sep 6, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
  1. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Gordon, you almost have it right. Winlink has been the aggressor in all this since RM-11306. If anything the rest of hamdom has been forced to defend itself from a group that wants to turn the ham bands into a cheap knockoff of a commercial utility.Winlink isn't being forced to respond to anything, but they sure are scrambling to clean up a decades long steaming pile of abuse. Try asking Steve Waterman why he told everyone to turn off busy detection and why it's now forced in software. There's more if you care to look, and understand. The busy detect thing is actually in an FCC filing, emails from Waterman.

    You are still missing the intent of RM-11831, pointed out to you many times, it's not about Pactor or Winlink. If you can't understand that there's nothing else I can do to help. It's in the petition, plain language, not hidden, no reading
    between the lines necessary.
     
    KA0HCP likes this.
  2. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks for confirming what I said earlier, nothing outside of your understanding is correct.
     
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you read carefully what I published to the FCC on Friday you can learn how to understand this.
     
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Feel free to write anything you want to the FCC, setting anything straight that you feel we have wrong.......

    Arguing here doesn’t really get anyone anywhere

    It is always astounding to me how many people make all sorts of noises here, but are never willing to put anything in print to the FCC !
     
  5. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    A nice thing happened after the treatise on compression that I published Friday. A real world-class expert spontaneously emailed me to congratulate, and explore the possibilities even further ....

    There are so many people who believe so many completely wrong things, it is a full-time job to try to explain these things to people who WILL NOT READ. It takes away from the effort of building the monitoring system that people ostensibly want so badly.... So it was nice to get the confirmatory note.
     
  6. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, like another popular personality, it is you who do not read. You love to expound and see your print on paper. And, of course expousing your associate professorship in the Gator medical department and your MD. Go right ahead.

    However, it was and is your intent to insulate Winlink's intent to encrypt from the accountability hammer. No matter how many programmable controllers you play with, it doesn't change their intent and why they used Huffman "translation tables" to obscure messages. Not my problem. It's your problem since you keep trying, now futilely, to defend the practice, and develop something to try to capture and decode error-free Winlink messaging. Let me offer you a suggestion: The more pesiflage that you file with the FCC, the more you'll develop a reputation. I needn't say anymore.

    Oh, and I love your admission that it is "we" accomplishing whatever it is that you think you are. Feel free anytime to reveal your handlers, Gordon.
     
  7. WB6CXC

    WB6CXC Ham Member QRZ Page

    Here's a clue for you: They used Huffman coding because it is an appropriate and effective compression method. They use compression to reduce required transmission times, and to reduce occupied bandwidth. They used FEC and ARQ to allow lower transmit power and fewer failed transmissions. All of these factors work to reduce interference to other users of our shared radio service.

    I am honestly shaken when I see fellow hams try to prohibit the use of standard methods used to improve spectral and operating efficiency. If ham radio is to just be about how many QSOs you can log during some contest... then you can count me out.
     
  8. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    To address shorter transmission time, that is an attribute of Huffman. Useful for for-fee telecomm pipelines. But, you have the extra tree baggage to contend with. Bandwidth, not so sure. Especially since PacTor 2 and 3 are good at expanding bandwidth to speed up throughput. P4, as I understand it, is not OFDM, so more of a fixed bandwidth. For a typical short WL messsage, time isn't really a factor anyway. Huffman creates unique translation tables each time WL software processes the body of a message. Essentially discarding the 7-bit ASCII values for the characters in the message. Not legal at HF. Sorry, but that's the nature of the beast.

    FEC is a good concept, except it slows things down. ARQ, well, if content isn't "translated," then its OK to see readable redundant content.

    This fellow ham believes amateur radio content should be openly decodable. Especially at HF. PacTor isn't the problem, it's the substitution of a unique translation table that is created for each message or string. Not my fault and not yours either.
     
  9. KA8NCR

    KA8NCR Ham Member QRZ Page

    From where I sit, they are actually doing that. Belated as it may be, isn't that kind of a win for your team?
     
  10. K4AGO

    K4AGO Ham Member QRZ Page

    I sense an ulterior motive here. It smells of WinLink.
    John
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page